Like it is with science? Here's what you said: "Einstein started with known physics (Maxwell equations)...".Originally posted by ahrkron
In order for a theory (physical or otherwise) to claim that an experimental result gives it any support, the said result should not be part of its initial hypotheses.
That's what I do. Though my conclusion becomes philosophical. I build a reasoned argument upon the back of known Laws. I don't build a scientific-theory.
Don't forget that my idea(s) are founded upon a system of reason which I equate to rationalism. Therefore, my ideas are purely philosophical. I have not (directly) proposed a new scientific theory here. I make no predictions about physical reality (though I do like to dabble occaisionally; for example my idea in the theory-room). Therefore, my idea/theory here does not even require experimental verification. It requires reasoned analysis for verification. That's how philosophy works. That's why I present my arguments in the philsophy forum.
My arguments bring all points (everything) to One point.What you are trying to do is similar to the following: say you have twenty points on a piece of paper (potential experimental results) and you use two of them (A and B) to draw a straight line (your "theory"). It is transparently obvious, by construction, that the line will go through A and B. Is the line hypothesis "prooved" by the agreement with A and B? of course not.
Not just one or two points.
Are you saying that Einstein's theory is incorrect? Do not all observers experience time & space as defined by Einstein? Of course they do. Is the speed-of-light absolute, or what?Your hypothesis starts off assuming all known physics gives the right predictions.
Let's not go down that absurd road which allows the laws of physics to become malleable in order for you to deconstruct my reasoning. There is no reason to infer that Einstein's Laws of Relativity are not correct.
This is philosophy. I'm not in the business of making predictions about matter. I am producing a conclusion (not a prediction). I am producing a fact from what we know.It does not produce anything close to a prediction
Like I said, my arguments don't alter science in the slightest. They just alter attitudes (materialistic, hopefully). And that would affect the future of scientific research.
It can be tested by reason. Do my ideas make sense, or not?so it cannot be tested for validity.
I don't believe that you don't see the significance of my philosophy.The only thing it allows is some imagery, but as a support for a philosophy of reality is completely unnecesary.
I fail to see why you would make such a remark.
Correct. However, it only 'works' within the confines of what we are actually certain of... of what we already know. The rest of the time, during research into specific phenomena, science is forced to make reasoned-guesses from the knowledge it already possesses. The same as me. But science is looking for a material-cause for everything. Therefore, physical-verification is necessary, to confirm that cause.You are forced to "build upon" scientific theory because it is evident for everyone that science works.
I however, had not limited my conclusions to anything like "All effects have a material-cause; therefore, theories about reality should be verifiable with observation.". Nay squire, not me!
My philosophy does not allow me to assert the nature of reality. I have to prove my case; and rightfully so.
You've already admitted that my hypothesis was compatible with Relativity, amongst other things. You've already granted me compatibility. Therefore, you too have seen that my interpretation has followed from known experimental results.However, you try to impose an interpretation that does not follow from known experimental results
Not in the slightest. I have paid special consideration of the twin paradox, as interpreted by science itself. The spacetwin can leave Earth at a specific moment. The moment he gets back, we can see that he has experienced 20/30 years less time than his brother (a wrinkle comparison). At least, this is what the Lorentz-transformations predict.and in doing so, you make seem as if your hypothesis needed to rely on a wrong interpretation of experimental facts.
As you can see, my idea is dependent upon this scientific presentation of the facts. Why would I try to prove that these things are wrong? I believe them. I need them to be right.
It affects the future of science (if correct). Not the past. But my philosophy reaches beyond the parameters of scientific consideration. It reaches to life itself. That's why people should listen.Then, why would anybody spend anytime with an interpretation that, admittedly, produces no differences whatsoever (while just adding complications to the description, yet not to any of the math involved)?
Frankly, I don't think you can justify that comment with reason and without exhibiting a specific philosophical bias. Namely, materialism.Frankly, not.
Have you ever stopped to consider that the repulsion of materialism from science, could benefit science?